Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone — yet it still adds substantial context: exactly what is destroyed (live post, views, likes, comments), what survives (ShortSync post kept as an audit record with status "removed", upload retained), and per-platform capability limits (TikTok/Snapchat/Reddit unsupported; Instagram/Threads conditional) with the resulting error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the highest-severity signal ("DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE") before any procedural guidance, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information. It runs long for a two-parameter tool and a couple of clauses (the dashboard analogy, the parenthetical about views/likes/comments) are reinforcement rather than new facts, keeping it just below top marks.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the post-condition (post marked "removed", upload kept) and the failure mode (platform-specific errors instructing the user to delete in-app). Combined with the confirmation requirement and the sibling routing rule, an agent has everything needed to decide and to act safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both video_post_id and idempotency_key are fully documented in the schema, including the warning that it is not the platform's own post ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own; its mention of status "published" only indirectly scopes which ID is valid. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("deletes an already published post from the social platform it went out on") and immediately bounds it with "Only works on posts with status 'published'". It also names the sibling it is not (cancel_scheduled_post) and the class of posts that sibling handles, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use (published post, matches the dashboard's "Delete from platform"), explicit process constraint ("Always confirm with the user first, naming the platform and the post"), explicit prohibition ("never call it on your own initiative or to clean up"), and an explicit alternative for drafts/scheduled/failed posts. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.